Well, I'm finally home. so I'll weigh in on this thread.
I can't remember where I actually got this question from. APHP may be correct as it may have been from an IAABO exam.
In any case, a ball can be fumbled without touching the floor. 4-21 defines a fumble as when a "ball unintentionally drops
or slips from a player' s grasp." I intentionally worded play #1 to include "hits the floor" and intentionally worded play #6 without the ball hitting the floor, which, I think, defintely makes the play legal.
Now, MHO. In play 1, I will always rule FC status and call the BC. In play 6, if the ball is fumbled, even if it hits the floor, and a dribble is immediately started, I'm going to give the player the benefit of the doubt. I'm not calling a BC violation, specifically in a situation like play #6 where he doesn't move his feet. I think the intent of the statement, "A player is not dribbling.... when he/she fumbles.." is moreso with regards to not calling a double dribble violation. In an ordinary situation, if a player fumbled the ball and started a dribble, it's of no consequence.
Does that rationale make any sense to anyone else?
